I have thought mostly about the first two quite a bit. I grew up in the Pentecostal/Evangelical scene, and both turned me off big time to church. My mom is considering going to church as soon as she gets things situated. I am not too happy about the idea. I have went along with her a few times, but I am not all that impressed. I believe that miracles are possible and all, but generally speaking, I think science prevails. (the Deist part). I like quakers, since they meet together, and don't have a pastor (the Orthodox). They are also pacifist, like the original church, as well as committed to charitable work like the original church. I find it the closest to the first century church than any other. I am also intrigued by deism. Many of our founding fathers were deist, although Tom Paine also endorsed Quakerism. I like the idea that God made a logical system, and usually sticks to it (which is what I basically believe to an extent). Now about Eastern Christianity, it seems closer to humanity than the West. In other words, it seems down to earth. When I say Eastern, I mean any others besides the Anglosphere. I do not intend to be Catholic (Eastern). So Any thoughts? I am somewhat interested in religion, but it seems like Western Christianity is a joke to a certain extent.

zacb wrote:I have thought mostly about the first two quite a bit. I grew up in the Pentecostal/Evangelical scene, and both turned me off big time to church. My mom is considering going to church as soon as she gets things situated. I am not too happy about the idea. I have went along with her a few times, but I am not all that impressed. I believe that miracles are possible and all, but generally speaking, I think science prevails. (the Deist part). I like quakers, since they meet together, and don't have a pastor (the Orthodox). They are also pacifist, like the original church, as well as committed to charitable work like the original church. I find it the closest to the first century church than any other. I am also intrigued by deism. Many of our founding fathers were deist, although Tom Paine also endorsed Quakerism. I like the idea that God made a logical system, and usually sticks to it (which is what I basically believe to an extent). Now about Eastern Christianity, it seems closer to humanity than the West. In other words, it seems down to earth. When I say Eastern, I mean any others besides the Anglosphere. I do not intend to be Catholic (Eastern). So Any thoughts? I am somewhat interested in religion, but it seems like Western Christianity is a joke to a certain extent.

My belief systems are more along the lines of Deism, Polytheism, and somewhat New Age. My tenants are the virtues. Based on logic how can anyone truly know that any religion is true or if any are true if a very select number of people make claims. Gods, angels, demons, spirits, and other beings could exist but they probably don't exist in our world. It's already theorized there are other dimensions and that other entities could exist on different levels of vibration. So that's why I find myself going more towards a personal belief system. It's also more possibly that if there was a creator he just lets everyone choose their own path and doesn't interfere in the world probably to allow people to earn their place in some level of the afterlife. Many religions have different levels of the afterlife (more than just a heaven and a hell).

Western Christianity has become somewhat of a joke because most people in the West (especially teenage girls/young women) don't follow the religion. They continue to whitewash the facts and tone down the rhetoric of their beliefs. Then the point I take issue with is how many areas of the Bible justify things like circumcision, claiming Chosen Peoples, or the implausibility of the Flood. No Ark could have been built to house every species on Earth, have all the food and water to keep everything alive, it would be impossible to build in the ancient times, and there would be no way to do that. Also, people can't gather every animal and insect. Assuming such a flood were possible if all the water and icecaps on Earth melted, and there was a polar shift that caused a worldwide tsunami then any mobile ark would be crushed and sink. There would also be no plants left alive. To imagine just one family repopulated the entire Earth is also illogical.

Most of those are probably small scale historical occurrences exaggerated with myths or acts of heroism made into mythical legends. Logical fallacies that are intertwined with all of the Judeo-Christian religions makes them the easiest to attack and discredit. The polytheist religions have some other elements that make them easy to discredit. So there are really no deist religions that are free from attack. The only way one could exist is if it revolved solely around virtues and leave it up to the individual to comprehend the deist element. The most important element of any religion is the virtues and morals. The common belief in a god, goddess, or pantheon is something that goes further but it also involves making the claim that it is 100% sure that is the one truth that can never be proven. It's easier to say there was a creator but it's not logical to claim there was one creator or many, and explain everything.

So that's why the virtues and general deism/theism make a more attack-proof religion with little attack points. Many religions have the same overlapping virtues. Many have the same general beliefs in deism/theism.

Ok. I mistook what you said above . I am kinda interested in Eastern Christianity (not Orthodox) . Some believe in Polygamy, while others in chewing khat. I seriously wonder what the differences are, especially in the Ethiopian churches.

Tsar wrote:
.....Then the point I take issue with is how many areas of the Bible justify things like circumcision, claiming Chosen Peoples, or the implausibility of the Flood. No Ark could have been built to house every species on Earth, have all the food and water to keep everything alive, it would be impossible to build in the ancient times, and there would be no way to do that....

Tsar wrote:
....the implausibility of the Flood. No Ark could have been built to house every species on Earth, have all the food and water to keep everything alive, it would be impossible to build in the ancient times, and there would be no way to do that. Also, people can't gather every animal and insect. Assuming such a flood were possible if all the water and icecaps on Earth melted, and there was a polar shift that caused a worldwide tsunami then any mobile ark would be crushed and sink. There would also be no plants left alive. To imagine just one family repopulated the entire Earth is also illogical.

For a detailed, plausible explanation, and beautiful artwork, I recommend:

I understand the faith aspect but the latest estimate is 7.77 million species of animal exist in the world. There were many more species the farther back in time you go because there was less extinctions from hunting and there wasn't a mass population of the world.

200 ancient legends have a flood so it could have occurred in some form. I can believe in an ark, a regional flood or a global flood, but the story as written can't be exactly as mentioned.

Wouldn't 2 of every species lead to a world without genetic diversity, increasing susceptibility to disease and viruses because of a limited gene pool? Also gathering every 7.77 million species from all continents and housing them in 3,000 cubits isn't feasible. It's not feasible today and it wasn't feasible in the ancient world. Housing the DNA would be possible but gathering that DNA from most species would be time consuming and take sizable manpower.

Theories are it was a regional flood or the ark was an alien vessel. Gathering regional animals or animals useful for survival within a smaller geographic area would be more plausible and believable. The Noah's Ark story is vague relating to specifics. It was always assumed that it meant 2 of every species in the world but that probably isn't true. The ancient people didn't really have a good understanding of how big the world really was or "world" could have been the area they knew and lived.

Tsar wrote:I understand the faith aspect but the latest estimate is 7.77 million species of animal exist in the world. There were many more species the farther back in time you go because there was less extinctions from hunting and there wasn't a mass population of the world.
You assume no new species, no evolution. Interesting, So by believing in Creation, you cannot accept the Flood?

200 ancient legends have a flood so it could have occurred in some form. I can believe in an ark, a regional flood or a global flood, but the story as written can't be exactly as mentioned.

People write from their own POV. Like "as many as the grains of sand on the beach". Or "without number". This doesn't make their stories false. it is evidence that they are TRUE.

Wouldn't 2 of every species lead to a world without genetic diversity, increasing susceptibility to disease and viruses because of a limited gene pool? Also gathering every 7.77 million species from all continents and housing them in 3,000 cubits isn't feasible. It's not feasible today and it wasn't feasible in the ancient world. Housing the DNA would be possible but gathering that DNA from most species would be time consuming and take sizable manpower.

My living room 3000 cubits in volume. What are you talking about?

And are those 7.7 million species include fish?

And do they include bacteria?

And do they include various types of butterfly - with new ones known to appear every day?

Theories are it was a regional flood or the ark was an alien vessel. Gathering regional animals or animals useful for survival within a smaller geographic area would be more plausible and believable. The Noah's Ark story is vague relating to specifics. It was always assumed that it meant 2 of every species in the world but that probably isn't true. The ancient people didn't really have a good understanding of how big the world really was or "world" could have been the area they knew and lived.

So I do believe there was an ark and a flood. Just not how it is commonly interpreted.

The problem here is the one typical among young men, Libertarians, and HA members. If YOU can't understand, then it can't be. Your universe is limited to the confines of your own mind.
What if you decided that your forebears were probably NOT idiots, and applied brainpower to how things COULD have happened?